Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to brief President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in late December on military options to counter Iran's expanding ballistic missile program, according to NBC News, signaling a potential inflection point in U.S.–Israel calculus on Tehran. The meeting—described by a person with direct knowledge and four former U.S. officials briefed on the plans—will frame Iran's reconstruction of missile production sites and air defenses damaged in 2025 strikes as a more urgent threat than nuclear enrichment activities, NBC reported. Reuters picked up the account but noted it could not independently verify the details; Israeli officials declined comment.
The framing is significant. For years, the Iran debate has orbited uranium stockpiles and breakout timelines. Now, Israel is prioritizing delivery systems—the missiles that survived two waves of strikes this year and are being reconstituted in dispersed, hardened facilities. The question is whether Washington and Jerusalem double down on preemptive denial strikes or explore a diplomatic opening that, for the first time, seriously constrains Iran's ballistic arsenal.
Strike cycle and reconstitution dynamics
The 2025 escalation cycle sets the context. Israel struck Iranian military and nuclear-associated sites on June 13, targeting production nodes and air defenses. The U.S. followed with Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, a one-time strike designed to signal resolve without assuming sustained campaign obligations. Iran responded with missile fire, including against a U.S. base in Qatar, demonstrating both retaliatory intent and operational readiness despite infrastructure damage.
Since then, Israeli intelligence has tracked what it assesses to be rapid reconstitution—repairs to damaged air defenses, resumption of activity at production facilities, and movement of equipment to alternate sites. NBC's sourcing includes claims that Iran may be capable of producing up to 3,000 missiles per month, though that figure should be treated as an Israeli warning assessment rather than verified fact. What is established: Iran operates the region's largest ballistic missile inventory, estimated by U.S. intelligence at over 3,000 missiles prior to the strikes, with advances in solid-propellant technology, underground basing, and cruise missile systems documented by analysts at the Washington Institute and other research centers.
Israeli officials' emphasis on missiles over enrichment reflects operational logic. Ballistic infrastructure is visible, targetable, and—crucially—active. Nuclear sites remain under partial IAEA monitoring, and verification disputes over damage from the June strikes have created opacity, but Iran has not declared a sprint to weaponization. Missiles, by contrast, are being built, tested, and, as the Qatar strike showed, used.
Members are reading: How Israeli strike options confront Iran's strategic depth, and why missile diplomacy remains the harder path never tried.
Escalation variables and the Mar-a-Lago calculus
Trump has publicly warned Iran against rebuilding "without a deal," threatening "obliteration" and claiming the U.S. can "knock out their missiles very quickly," according to NBC. That rhetoric establishes a deterrent ceiling but leaves operational questions unresolved. NBC also noted potential friction between Trump and Netanyahu over Gaza ceasefire terms, which could temper U.S. enthusiasm for new military commitments—a political variable that may shape the Mar-a-Lago discussion as much as intelligence assessments.
Iran's broader vulnerabilities—nuclear opacity intersecting with domestic water and economic crises—complicate its risk tolerance. Tehran cannot afford to appear weak, but it also cannot afford a protracted, high-intensity conflict that drains resources and exposes internal fragility. That creates narrow openings for coercive diplomacy, but only if Washington and Jerusalem align on objectives beyond tactical damage.
The decision emerging from Mar-a-Lago will reveal whether the two capitals see missiles as targets to be struck or leverage to be traded. Either path accepts that Iran's ballistic program is now the centerpiece of its deterrent architecture—no longer subordinate to nuclear timelines, but the operational threat driving the debate. The briefing is not about whether Iran's missiles matter. It is about what comes next when strikes alone cannot solve the problem they are meant to address.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
